And that's the point. No one knows for sure. And the world can't turn on hearsay and guesses.

But with Cycling's chequered past I think it's right questions are asked. I just think it's wrong the way Sky/Wiggo/Froome have been tried and found guilty by Trail by Press.

FWIW the accusations are that YES rules have been broken. Not just Moral rules.

If the TUE's have been applied for under false pretences, I.E the medical conditions were bogus then that is a clear violation even if the Authorities agreed it.

That's not a moral/Ethical violation it is cheating pure and simple.

We are a long way from knowing if that is the case though. But the implications are rules have been broken. That's why the hearsay and tittle tattle needs verifying one way or the other. You can't just hide in the shadows and throw mud!

I don't have a lot of time for Sutton, but at least he is out and open with his accusations!

You've moderated your view on caffeine then? Previously you told me the analogy was "lame" for bringing it into a similar debate...

explorerJC wrote:

stenard wrote:

explorerJC wrote:

my personal moral standpoint is that i wouldn't want my kids pumped full of drugs legal or otherwise...

the old caffeine argument has been pretty lame for a while and just supports the worst aspects of the pro teams...

I dont think it is lame. It's an extreme example of different viewpoints of what's ok. TinPot for example would appear of the view of nothing being allowed. Hammerer on the other hand considers caffeine, protein shakes etc to not be artificial aids, but I know people who consider them to be. If you want the protein, eat more protein based foods. Whey protein powder is artificially extracted from other food products, so it isn't "natural".

It's no different from the tax avoidance argument. An ISA is the coffee in this sense. Noone would argue using an ISA is morally wrong tax avoidance, but it is tax avoidance nonetheless. So saying "tax avoidance is morally reprehensible" is just diluting a very complex and grey area, where large swathes of the population have different moral viewpoints.

Hence, what is defined to be legal and illegal, as potentially decided by the courts, is the only way an athlete can be fundamentally criticised as far as I am concerned.

on this point at least, I would not only prefer to keep the moral high ground, but also wouldn't like anyone's child to be submitted to any medication because some dodgy doctor was willlng to write a prescription but keep no records...

the grown ups can, of course, do what they like but must expect someone to put a spoke in their wheel when it becomes public.....

You've moderated your view on caffeine then? Previously you told me the analogy was "lame" for bringing it into a similar debate...

explorerJC wrote:

stenard wrote:

explorerJC wrote:

my personal moral standpoint is that i wouldn't want my kids pumped full of drugs legal or otherwise...

the old caffeine argument has been pretty lame for a while and just supports the worst aspects of the pro teams...

I dont think it is lame. It's an extreme example of different viewpoints of what's ok. TinPot for example would appear of the view of nothing being allowed. Hammerer on the other hand considers caffeine, protein shakes etc to not be artificial aids, but I know people who consider them to be. If you want the protein, eat more protein based foods. Whey protein powder is artificially extracted from other food products, so it isn't "natural".

It's no different from the tax avoidance argument. An ISA is the coffee in this sense. Noone would argue using an ISA is morally wrong tax avoidance, but it is tax avoidance nonetheless. So saying "tax avoidance is morally reprehensible" is just diluting a very complex and grey area, where large swathes of the population have different moral viewpoints.

Hence, what is defined to be legal and illegal, as potentially decided by the courts, is the only way an athlete can be fundamentally criticised as far as I am concerned.

on this point at least, I would not only prefer to keep the moral high ground, but also wouldn't like anyone's child to be submitted to any medication because some dodgy doctor was willlng to write a prescription but keep no records...

the grown ups can, of course, do what they like but must expect someone to put a spoke in their wheel when it becomes public.....

Its a tax free savings mechanism designed to be exactly that, and created by the government for that exact purpose. In effect is a tax-free savings scheme and as such there is no tax to be avoided.

Things which are 'tax avoidance' are things by which you avoid paying taxes as an unforeseen, un unexpected consequence. ISA's are specifically designed to be tax free and therefore no tax is avoided because there is no tax by design.

Its like claiming that buying something cheaper is avoiding the marginal tax difference and therefore is avoidance.
_________________Arguing with engineers is like wrestling in mud with a pig - after a while you realise they like it
newMan : I don't know why you think you can address me like that! Don't ever reply directly to any of my posts again please.

Its a tax free savings mechanism designed to be exactly that, and created by the government for that exact purpose. In effect is a tax-free savings scheme and as such there is no tax to be avoided.

Things which are 'tax avoidance' are things by which you avoid paying taxes as an unforeseen, un unexpected consequence. ISA's are specifically designed to be tax free and therefore no tax is avoided because there is no tax by design.

Its like claiming that buying something cheaper is avoiding the marginal tax difference and therefore is avoidance.

Fair enough. It was an simplistic counter example that most people understand the pretense of, on a different thread. I accept it's more an example of tax mitigation, as intended by Parliament. But most people aren't going to get so into the nuances of the terminology.

But an ISA ultimately is a choice, and that's the main point I was trying to draw attention to. There's a fundamental case in tax law that says, paraphrasing, of two choices of how to do something, no sane person would do the one that incurs the larger tax charge. To a large extent, that's what underpins the legality of avoidance (as opposed to evasion).

Tax law is so complex, that sometimes "avoidance" is not in the realms of deviously achieving an advantage that Parliament did not intend. It's simply different interpretations and then the courts ultimately have to decide what was actually intended.

And the reason for using the ISA "tax avoidance" analogy was relevant in this context. Coffee / caffeine is often dismissed as a "grey" area in PEDs as it said to be so routine no sane person would ever consider it cheating, just like ISAs are not in any way real tax avoidance. Yet to some people who take the supreme moral high ground, everyone should look to pay the most tax they can, and thus using an ISA is costing the state tax take. And it's this mindset I consider equivalent to people who say athletes should literally consume bread and water to never expose themselves.

It's grossly oversimplifying things, and a silly mindset. You work within what the laws prescribe.

However, out of context, I can accept my analogy used somewhat sloppy language in referring to an ISA as tax avoidance.

You've moderated your view on caffeine then? Previously you told me the analogy was "lame" for bringing it into a similar debate...

explorerJC wrote:

stenard wrote:

explorerJC wrote:

my personal moral standpoint is that i wouldn't want my kids pumped full of drugs legal or otherwise...

the old caffeine argument has been pretty lame for a while and just supports the worst aspects of the pro teams...

I dont think it is lame. It's an extreme example of different viewpoints of what's ok. TinPot for example would appear of the view of nothing being allowed. Hammerer on the other hand considers caffeine, protein shakes etc to not be artificial aids, but I know people who consider them to be. If you want the protein, eat more protein based foods. Whey protein powder is artificially extracted from other food products, so it isn't "natural".

It's no different from the tax avoidance argument. An ISA is the coffee in this sense. Noone would argue using an ISA is morally wrong tax avoidance, but it is tax avoidance nonetheless. So saying "tax avoidance is morally reprehensible" is just diluting a very complex and grey area, where large swathes of the population have different moral viewpoints.

Hence, what is defined to be legal and illegal, as potentially decided by the courts, is the only way an athlete can be fundamentally criticised as far as I am concerned.

on this point at least, I would not only prefer to keep the moral high ground, but also wouldn't like anyone's child to be submitted to any medication because some dodgy doctor was willlng to write a prescription but keep no records...

the grown ups can, of course, do what they like but must expect someone to put a spoke in their wheel when it becomes public.....

Not sure why that quotes back but lets just say whilst they arent "artificial aids" and not banned I wouldn't let my son drink energy drinks, heaps of caffeine or protein shakes and I also wouldnt let any of my junior athletes touch it under my supervision. I told a mum off the other week for giving her 14 year old a bottle of lucozade sport after a swim. It was 3.5k 90 minutes but he doesnt need that shit. BUT they are legal "food stuffs" so you can pump yourself full of them all you like.
_________________Blog

You've moderated your view on caffeine then? Previously you told me the analogy was "lame" for bringing it into a similar debate...

explorerJC wrote:

stenard wrote:

explorerJC wrote:

my personal moral standpoint is that i wouldn't want my kids pumped full of drugs legal or otherwise...

the old caffeine argument has been pretty lame for a while and just supports the worst aspects of the pro teams...

I dont think it is lame. It's an extreme example of different viewpoints of what's ok. TinPot for example would appear of the view of nothing being allowed. Hammerer on the other hand considers caffeine, protein shakes etc to not be artificial aids, but I know people who consider them to be. If you want the protein, eat more protein based foods. Whey protein powder is artificially extracted from other food products, so it isn't "natural".

It's no different from the tax avoidance argument. An ISA is the coffee in this sense. Noone would argue using an ISA is morally wrong tax avoidance, but it is tax avoidance nonetheless. So saying "tax avoidance is morally reprehensible" is just diluting a very complex and grey area, where large swathes of the population have different moral viewpoints.

Hence, what is defined to be legal and illegal, as potentially decided by the courts, is the only way an athlete can be fundamentally criticised as far as I am concerned.

on this point at least, I would not only prefer to keep the moral high ground, but also wouldn't like anyone's child to be submitted to any medication because some dodgy doctor was willlng to write a prescription but keep no records...

the grown ups can, of course, do what they like but must expect someone to put a spoke in their wheel when it becomes public.....

i'd need to read it again in context...

i still haven't found my original post but must assume that I meant that if it was not on the banned list then you have to accept that people will take it but if it is then you ought to be able to make a judgement on those who do take it...
_________________www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

I'm not sure it's totally out of context.
Unless I am mistaken, eJC's original response was to my comment saying

Quote:

If something is not illegal, then regardless of your personal standpoint, it should be considered fair game. Caffeine is a stimulant yet has not been made illegal, ergo it's ok. Where individuals draw a "moral" line is ambiguous, and therefore you can only go by what's on the list. Unfortunately there is not a list of what is specifically legal as far as I am aware.

To which the reply was

Quote:

the old caffeine argument has been pretty lame for a while and just supports the worst aspects of the pro teams...

Now I can see it's a subtly different point. e.g. Using the fact that caffeine is a legal stimulant to excuse using much more dubious products, but that was actually my point. There is a spectrum, at least morally, but from a legality standpoint, all the teams and associations can go by is what is and is not specified as illegal by WADA.

The same kind of spectrum, where there is a line in the sand the rules say cannot be crossed, exists in a number of areas of the rules. Yet, because of personal moral stances on the use of any or all artificial (or natural) chemical aids, many people seem to take a different stance in this area than they do in others.

For example, UCI TT position. Rules say you can't have the nose of the saddle any closer than 5cm behind the line of the BB. Different riders are different shapes and sizes, so different riders will want it either bang on the limit, or with some room to spare. But there is a limit that you cannot cross. But even then you get into morphological exemptions. And then into the realms of cutting the nose off a saddle. I'd argue the latter is getting into a grey area given I believe the limits were set before stub nose saddles existed (originally, didn't riders literally hacksaw off a chunk of the saddle nose?!), yet none of this gets the same kind of attention as taking a substance that is not specified as illegal, but which an individual person might have a personal objection against.

My whole position on this matter is that all you can realistically expect from the teams is that they abide by the rules as written. A personal view on whether the rules are strict enough is a totally different debate. I'm not saying I personally agree with pushing the limits of these rules to the extreme, but I don't think you can castigate teams for approaching doing so in a professional sport with money on the line.

I'm not sure it's totally out of context.
Unless I am mistaken, eJC's original response was to my comment saying

Quote:

If something is not illegal, then regardless of your personal standpoint, it should be considered fair game. Caffeine is a stimulant yet has not been made illegal, ergo it's ok. Where individuals draw a "moral" line is ambiguous, and therefore you can only go by what's on the list. Unfortunately there is not a list of what is specifically legal as far as I am aware.

To which the reply was

Quote:

the old caffeine argument has been pretty lame for a while and just supports the worst aspects of the pro teams...

Now I can see it's a subtly different point. e.g. Using the fact that caffeine is a legal stimulant to excuse using much more dubious products, but that was actually my point. There is a spectrum, at least morally, but from a legality standpoint, all the teams and associations can go by is what is and is not specified as illegal by WADA.

.

Yep, meaning that using caffeine as an excuse to delve further into the murky world of acceptability is lame...
_________________www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

My whole position on this matter is that all you can realistically expect from the teams is that they abide by the rules as written. A personal view on whether the rules are strict enough is a totally different debate. I'm not saying I personally agree with pushing the limits of these rules to the extreme, but I don't think you can castigate teams for approaching doing so in a professional sport with money on the line.

Sky can do what ever they like for all I care...although for the sake of the future of the sport i wish that they played fair....but their association with BC has always been the problem for me. The lack of oversight was an extremely poor decision by all concerned.
_________________www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching